Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Wednesday, 22 December 2004

In Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH v Waters Corp and another (spotted by LexisNexis' subscription-only All England Direct service) [2004] EWHC 2992 (Ch) Mr Justice Pumfrey, sitting in the Patents Court, dismissed what looked like a pretty far-out patent infringement claim. Agilent owned a patent for to pumping apparatus for the delivery of liquid at high pressure which could be used in high pressure liquid chromatography columns. Following unreported proceedings in which the Court of Appeal ([2002] All ER (D) 152 (May)) held the patent valid and infringed, Agilent sued again, alleging that another Waters' pump system infringed. This machine operated in ‘manual mode’,the operator selecting pump volume from four pre-selectable volumes and separately specifying the flow rate of solvent delivered by the machine. This machine informed the operator if it could not deliver the specified flow rate at the volume specified but did not automatically change the range. Waters maintained that automatic operation was essential to the patent, while Agilent said the claim specified an apparatus which was capable of performing the required adjustment.

Agilent: are they trying to invent a machine for pumping out patent infringement claims?

Mr Justice Pumfrey dismissed the claim, holding that the patent was not infringed. On its true construction, the characterising portion of the patent could only be read as conferring a monopoly on apparatus capable of operating automatically in the manner described at length in the specification. The learned judge expressed the view that it was astonishing that a patent which was based upon a description which only contemplated automatic tracking of the desired flow rate should be capable of covering a device in which there was no such automatic tracking. The IPKat agrees with him. Whether you use the old Catnic/Improver test of non-exact infringement or the more sophisticated Kirin-Amgen approach, there's no scope for stretching this patent's claims to cover Waters' invention.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!